- (1.) THIS is an election petition under Sections 80 and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) by Shri Umrao singh Dhabariya, a defeated candidate, calling in question the election of Shri yashwant Singh Nahar respondent No. 1 to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Banera Constituency (No. 144) in the last general elections held in february, 1967, claiming prayers to - (i) declare the election of the respondent No. 1 to the a Rajasthan legislative Assembly from Banera Constituency (No. 144) void, and (ii) further to declare the petitioner duly elected from the aforesaid banera constituency (No. 144) to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. There were three contesting candidates in the Banera constituency: (i) The petitioner Shri Umrao Singh, Dhabariya who was a sitting member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly contested the election as a Socialist Party candidate, (ii) The respondent No. 1 Shri Yashwant singh Nahar who was the Zila Pramukh of the Bhilwara Zila Parishad was the candidate of the Congress party which was the ruling party in power headed by Shri Mohan Lal Sukhadia the Chief Minister. (iii) The respondent No. 2 Shri Dwarka Prasad contested as a Praja socialist Party candidate. The first and the last date for filing nomination papers were 13th January and 18th january, 1967, respectively. Polling took place on 18th February, 1967. According to ballot paper account, 33,520 ballot papers were issued to the voters and 44 ballot papers were received by post. Thus, 33564 ballots were polled. Counting was done on 22nd February, 1967. The total votes found and counted came to 32,555 including the 44 ballot papers received by post. The rest of the ballot papers were found missing. The respondent Shri Yashwant Singh Nahar polled 16,287 votes, the petitioner Shri Umrao Singh Dhabariya 12,399 and Shri Dwarka prasad 2,386 votes. 1,483 ballot papers were rejected as invalid. The respondent no. 1 having secured the maximum of votes was declared elected on 22-2-1967.
(2.) ON 7-4-67 the last date of limitation the petitioner filed an election petition challenging the election on various grounds:- (1) In the first instance, it was stated that the respondent No. 1 was, on the date of election as well as nomination, disqualified to be chosen a member of the Legislative Assembly under Article 191 (1) (a) of the constitution of India as he held the office of the Pramukh of Zila parishad, Bhilwara, since early 1965 till the date of the presentation of the petition. It was further stated that as a Pramukh the respondent No. 1 had been drawing a monthly honorarium in addition to the travelling and daily allowances payable to him. (2) The petitioner also averred that the respondent and his agents and workers with his consent and knowledge committed the corrupt practices of bribery and undue influence and of obtaining or procuring the assistance of certain categories of persons in the service of the government. (3) Reliance was also placed on the discrepancy relating to the ballot papers polled and the ballot papers counted and it was contended that the ballot papers were tampered with and the sanctity of the ballot boxes having been lost the aforesaid election cannot be maintained. The petitioner impleaded the other two contesting candidates as also Shri shri Narain Das Mehta who was Collector and District Magistrate, bhilwara, during the election period, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, gulabpura -- Returnning Officer for 144 Banera Assembly Constituency and Shri Shiv Narain Tiwari Vikas Adhikari, Banera District Bhilwara, as there were allegations that the respondent No. 1 procured their assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of his election.
(3.) THE election petition and the schedules were verified in a general manner on the basis of personal knowledge and information received and reasonably believed to be correct. The petitioner also filed an affidavit as required by the proviso to section 83 (1) of the Act but in the affidavit it was not mentioned what allegations were being verified on personal knowledge and what allegations were based on information received and believed to be correct.;